Please, enlighten us Yinzers, because we do not get how giving up 3 points equals the defense sucking.

Seriously... explain.

Q: If the defense pitched a shut-out, would you STILL complain? I am seriously asking, because if your answer is "Yes" then I truly have no idea why you'd be complaining. (I barely understand why you'd scoff at the defense giving up only 3 points). So, again, explain to us Yinzers.

harrison'samonster seemed to get it from his last post. I guess I make sense to at least one person.

No one is saying the defense lost that game. They kept the Steelers in it all night. But for the past two seasons this defense has been unable to make splash plays and give the offense a short field. Against Baltimore with Ben out, the defense needed to make a splash play. Do you really expect Byron Leftwich to lead the offense down an 80+ yard field and score consistently? Do you expect Charlie Batch to do it against Cleveland? Being ranked high as far as yards and points is great and will give the Steelers a chance to win most of the time, but the Steelers aren't getting to the Super Bowl if the splash plays don't come more often.

Special teams also bears some blame in that regard as the return game is practically non-existent and the coverage is a joke.

harrison'samonster seemed to get it from his last post. I guess I make sense to at least one person.

No one is saying the defense lost that game. They kept the Steelers in it all night. But for the past two seasons this defense has been unable to make splash plays and give the offense a short field. Against Baltimore with Ben out, the defense needed to make a splash play. Do you really expect Byron Leftwich to lead the offense down an 80+ yard field and score consistently? Do you expect Charlie Batch to do it against Cleveland? Being ranked high as far as yards and points is great and will give the Steelers a chance to win most of the time, but the Steelers aren't getting to the Super Bowl if the splash plays don't come more often.

Special teams also bears some blame in that regard as the return game is practically non-existent and the coverage is a joke.

If you told the 32 head coaches that their defense would only give up 3 points, every coach would take that in a heartbeat.

Sure, it does not 100% guarantee a win:
--rain might even the playing field
--some weird special teams fiasco occurs
--the offense gets shut out (0-3)

The other 97 times out of 100, 3 points wins the game.

Football is simple: the team with the most points wins the game. And, 3 points is the second lowest total that a defense can give up (zero being the least amount).

You "say" that you do not blame the defense, but then you turn right around and say that the defense should have given the offense a short field. WHY? The defense gave them something even better: a deficit of only 3 points. Any offense should be able to score more than 3 points... even a broken-ribbed led offense. Furthermore, Byron did not have to "consistently" lead his offense on 80 yard drives; he needed two FGs. You act like he had to overcome a three touchdown deficit. Again, he had to surpass 3 points... and again, even a broken-ribbed QB should have been able to score 6 points.

Regardless, even if the defense had produced a short field, what then??? Because, I remember Mike Wallace not dragging his toe on a TD (a TD that would have given the Steelers the win). So, short field or not, the offense did not come through (i.e. did not capitalize on red-zone opportunities).

Furthermore, if given an "either or" option, as opposed to a shortened field, I say that the offense would actually prefer to only have to score more than 3 points. As in, if we asked the offense:

Would you rather your average starting point for a drive be at the 35 yard line?
OR
Would you rather the defense only allow 3 points (i.e. you only have to score 6 points)???

I think that all 32 offensive coordinators and/or head coaches would choose the latter.

harrison'samonster seemed to get it from his last post. I guess I make sense to at least one person.

No one is saying the defense lost that game. They kept the Steelers in it all night. But for the past two seasons this defense has been unable to make splash plays and give the offense a short field. Against Baltimore with Ben out, the defense needed to make a splash play. Do you really expect Byron Leftwich to lead the offense down an 80+ yard field and score consistently? Do you expect Charlie Batch to do it against Cleveland? Being ranked high as far as yards and points is great and will give the Steelers a chance to win most of the time, but the Steelers aren't getting to the Super Bowl if the splash plays don't come more often.

Special teams also bears some blame in that regard as the return game is practically non-existent and the coverage is a joke.

But splash plays don't count for points. Much more important for a defense is not allowing splash plays, at which this team is very good. The only stat that really matters is points allowed, which is accomplished 95% of the time by gaining offensive yards, so those two are closely related. Nothing else matters.

I prefer to agree with Lebeau and his players, who insist that if they continue to play sound defense the splash plays will come. The basic thing to stress is tackling, not allowing points, or the big plays that lead to points. They do these things very well. Everything else is gravy.

Quote:

Originally Posted by GoFor7

You know, all those points the Patriots have been scoring in the past few weeks aren't just on Tom Brady. They've been getting scores from their defense (which is statistically inferior to the Steelers' defense) and their special teams. The Steelers' defense needs to return to its old ways of making splash plays. And that is not controversial, it's fact.

When your offense puts you up by double-digits, the defense's job gets a whole lot easier and the turnovers start coming in bunches. When was the last time the offense put us up by 21 or 28 or whatever it was yesterday?

If you told the 32 head coaches that their defense would only give up 3 points, every coach would take that in a heartbeat.

Sure, it does not 100% guarantee a win:
--rain might even the playing field
--some weird special teams fiasco occurs
--the offense gets shut out (0-3)

The other 97 times out of 100, 3 points wins the game.

Football is simple: the team with the most points wins the game. And, 3 points is the second lowest total that a defense can give up (zero being the least amount).

You "say" that you do not blame the defense, but then you turn right around and say that the defense should have given the offense a short field. WHY? The defense gave them something even better: a deficit of only 3 points. Any offense should be able to score more than 3 points... even a broken-ribbed led offense. Furthermore, Byron did not have to "consistently" lead his offense on 80 yard drives; he needed two FGs. You act like he had to overcome a three touchdown deficit. Again, he had to surpass 3 points... and again, even a broken-ribbed QB should have been able to score 6 points.

Regardless, even if the defense had produced a short field, what then??? Because, I remember Mike Wallace not dragging his toe on a TD (a TD that would have given the Steelers the win). So, short field or not, the offense did not come through (i.e. did not capitalize on red-zone opportunities).

Furthermore, if given an "either or" option, as opposed to a shortened field, I say that the offense would actually prefer to only have to score more than 3 points. As in, if we asked the offense:

Would you rather your average starting point for a drive be at the 35 yard line?
OR
Would you rather the defense only allow 3 points (i.e. you only have to score 6 points)???

I think that all 32 offensive coordinators and/or head coaches would choose the latter.

But splash plays don't count for points. Much more important for a defense is not allowing splash plays, at which this team is very good. The only stat that really matters is points allowed, which is accomplished 95% of the time by gaining offensive yards, so those two are closely related. Nothing else matters

Splash plays don't count for points? Well, I guess in reality it isn't always a given they count for points, but they damn well increase a team's chances of getting more points.

Quote:

When your offense puts you up by double-digits, the defense's job gets a whole lot easier and the turnovers start coming in bunches. When was the last time the offense put us up by 21 or 28 or whatever it was yesterday?

Like I said earlier, the Steelers don't think like that. They think possession is more important than scoring and that the offense should babysit the defense. Now if you want the offense to get ahead like that, then they have to stop worrying about time of possession and take more shots down the field. Since the defense can't force turnovers, and since special teams suck, the offense isn't going to get down field on a consistent basis by dinking-and-dunking 80 to 90 yards each drive. Receivers dropping catchable balls don't help either.

Typical Gofor7 response: berate Steelers fans at every possible opportunity; derisively refer to people as "Yinz"; and/or say that anyone who makes any sort of point is too stupid to get your garbled counter-points (if there is ever even a counter-point).

You can say whatever you want. Everyone is here to discuss the Steelers.

BUT, when you say outlandish stuff (the defense lost the Ravens game)... then expect some people to respond. Of course, if anyone disagrees with you, you go into "Yinz this" and "typical Steelers fan that."

You blamed the defense for the Ravens loss... so, again, the onus is on you to explain why giving 3 points makes this a bad defense. NOPE, all we get is derision.

Maybe if you has said something like: you'd like to see more turnovers (who wouldn't want more turnovers? That is effing obvious; I'd like seven TDs per game, as well). BUT, you didn't say that. Instead, you aver that the defense lost the game, because the defense did not hand deliver a TD to the offense.

So, I can now expect a "You're a Yinzer" response and/or some sort of nasty remark, because you lack any real ground to stand on.

GOFOR7: The defense lost this game.
ANYONE ELSE: The defense only gave up 3 points.
GOFOR7: You're a Yinzer.

Unfortunately that is true. Any slightly negative inference that goes against majority opinion and you are labeled as 'gay', 'not a fan', 'ravens fan', 'collinsworth lover' and so on. It seems most Steelers fans like to feel they are better than fans of other teams, but they are the same. If you don't agree with them, you suck.

You apparently cannot be an objective Steelers fan, must be subjective.

Unfortunately that is true. Any slightly negative inference that goes against majority opinion and you are labeled as 'gay', 'not a fan', 'ravens fan', 'collinsworth lover' and so on. It seems most Steelers fans like to feel they are better than fans of other teams, but they are the same. If you don't agree with them, you suck.

You apparently cannot be an objective Steelers fan, must be subjective.

1. I never use derision. Maybe others do, and I can not speak for them, but since you are replying to something said about me, then I feel the need to clarify.

2. We all come here to discuss. Rarely do all of us agree. But, discussion follows a back & forth... an ebb & flow... something that does not occur with several people on this site.

Some of us bring up points & counter-points; others just call names. Maybe you're one of the prior.

2-a. I feel that my points were pretty darn objective; being called a "Yinzer" is very subjective... and argumentative... (and admittedly, brought out some more "opinionated" comments).

3. Maybe you can be more enlightening than your counterpart. He says that the defense is at fault for the loss to the Ravens, because the defense did not set the offense up to score (via turnovers). I say that the defense only gave up 3 points, which is effing great.

Please, explain to me how giving up 3 points makes for a bad defensive outing.